The Court found that the Settlement Class is properly certified asa class for settlement purposes only. The provisional SettlementClass is defined as: "All Persons employed by Defendant as non-exempt, hourly employees within the State of California betweenMay 7, 2005 and December 19, 2013 (the date of the entry of theCourt's Order Granting Preliminary Approval to this settlement)".

The Court confirmed the appointment of Plaintiffs Jose Tijero andAmanda Godfrey as the Class Representatives; and the Law Officesof Badame & Associates, APC and the Law Offices of Daniel Feder asClass Counsel.

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, the Court awarded theSettlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., its fees andexpenses in connection with the administration of the settlementin the amount of $91,804.00 to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The objection to the Settlement Agreement filed on May 22, 2014was found to be untimely, and therefore not properly before theCourt. Furthermore, the objection was without merit. Accordingly,the late-filed objection to the Settlement Agreement wasoverruled.

The appellate case is Fernando Ruiz, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated v. Affinity Logistics Corporation,Case No. 12-56589, in the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit. The original case is Fernando Ruiz, individuallyand on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AffinityLogistics Corporation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02125-JLS-KSC, in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia.

However, "Upon information and belief for the year ending Dec. 31,2012, the cash balance in the master trust accounts at First Utahwas $23,879,948," the 29-page complaint states.

"Upon information and belief customer account statements preparedand sent out by APS indicate that the total customer cash thatshould have been in the master trust accounts on Dec. 31, 2012 was$45,949,847. The master trust accounts had a shortage of$22,069,899 in customer funds."

Oliver claims the discrepancies continued.

"Upon information and belief for the year ending Dec. 31, 2013,the balance in the master trust accounts held at First Utah was$34,553,402.

"However, upon information and belief, customer account statementsprepared and sent out by APS indicate that the total customer cashthat should have been in the master trust accounts on Dec. 31,2013 was $57,311,527. The master trust accounts had a shortage of$22,758,125 in investor funds. The amount of the missing customerfunds had increased by nearly $700,000 from 2012 to 2013," thecomplaint states.

"Upon information and belief, in addition to individualinvestments made by APS customers, DeYoung directly invested APSfunds with Friend A or Friend A's various business entitieswithout disclosing to customers this use of customer funds.

"Upon information and belief, all of the investments DeYoung madefor APS customers with Friend A or his entities were unsecured.

"Friend A's business ventures never generated a profit and sinceapproximately 2010, all promissory notes issued by Friend A to APSand APS customers are in default.

"Upon information and belief, in 2010, DeYoung agreed to forgiveall investments APS made with Friend A, even though the fundsinvested were not DeYoung's to forgive the debt."

Other investments widely held in APS customer accounts includeNational Note of Utah LC and Management Solutions Inc., Oliversays. Investments in those entities allegedly continued to beheld at full investment value long after they became worthless orsignificantly reduced in value.

DeYoung also allegedly invested $2.8 million in an office buildingin Wichita, which was lost.

Oliver claims she transferred $55,000 from a Roth IRA account atFidelity to APS, in 2009. She learned in April that her assetswith APS had been frozen, as the company was placed underreceivership at the request of the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

During sworn testimony, DeYoung refused to answer any questionsregarding the missing $23 million, the complaint states.

Oliver, of Long Beach, Calif., seeks $50 million in punitivedamages, plus an injunction and accounting for securities fraud,misappropriation of funds and emotional distress.

Pending before the court are plaintiffs' Amended Motion for ClassCertification and defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

District Judge Janet C. Hall, in an amended ruling dated May 27,2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/EOhvUgfrom Leagle.com, granted plaintiffs' Amended Motion for ClassCertification and denied defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A copy ofJudge Hall's original ruling is available at http://is.gd/fyuWzvfrom Leagle.com.

The Court certified Class A and subclasses of Classes B and C as:

"Class A" shall consist of all persons to whom defendants sent or caused to be sent a fax advertisement containing a notice identical or substantially similar to the Opt-Out Notice from June 1, 2012 through March 14, 2013, or on October 17, 2010, January 14, 2011, January 22, 2011, January 30, 2011, June 6, 2011 or June 25, 2011.

"CTLA Class B" shall consist of all persons whose fax numbers defendants obtained through the CTLA directory and to whom defendants sent or caused to be sent an unsolicited fax advertisement from June 1, 2012 through March 14, 2013, or on October 17, 2010, January 14, 2011, January 22, 2011, January 30, 2011, June 6, 2011 or June 25, 2011.

"CTLA Class C" shall consist of all persons in Connecticut whose fax numbers defendants obtained through the CTLA directory and to whom, without having obtained express invitation or permission, defendants sent or caused to be sent a fax advertisement from June 1, 2012 through March 14, 2013 or on June 6, 2011 or June 25, 2011.

Lead plaintiffs Roger H. Kaye and Roger H. Kaye, MC PC areappointed as class representatives of each class. Plaintiffs'counsel, Attorneys Aytan Y. Bellin and Roger Furman, are appointedas class counsel for each of the three classes.

APPLE INC: Court Approved $6 Million ITunes Gift Card Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Heather Johnson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports thatApple must credit consumers for more than $6 million worth ofiTunes gift cards it deactivated before they were redeemed under asettlement given final approval by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said on June 13, 2014, that thesettlement "represents 100% recovery for the class."

An estimated 287,218 deactivated gift cards purchased between theclass period of September 2007 and December 2009 have a value ofmore than $6 million, according to the stipulation of settlement.

Apple, Best Buy and Incomm Holdings are obligated under thesettlement to "provide class members with iTunes account creditsfor all Credited Gift Cards; iTunes account credits for allIdentified Gift Cards; assure all Reactivated Gift Cards have beenreactivated as of November 14, 2013; [and] honor all QualifiedVerified Valid Receipts," according to the final approval order.

The order also appoints Barbara Fafard as the representative ofthe settlement class, and it designates Kershaw, Cutter &Ratinoff, of Sacramento, Calif., and Marcus & Auerbach, ofJenkintown, Pa., as class counsel.

The firms will recover $750,000 in attorneys' fees, and Fafardwill receive a $5,000 incentive fee.

The cost of the settlement administration and class notice, whichthe defendants must also cover, is expected to be in excess of$300,000, according to a motion filed in February 2014.

Wilken granted the deal preliminary approval in April. The finalorder states that no class member opted out of or objected to thesettlement.

Fafard claimed in the complaint that the gift cards did not listan expiration date and that neither Best Buy nor Apple informedcustomers of one.

"Neither Best Buy nor Apple provides the purchaser with anyreasons why, or an example of any circumstance under which, a giftcard would be deactivated after purchase," the complaint alleged.

Fafard said she received gift cards from her daughter, but thatthe cards were canceled less than a year after purchase.

"Apple made it clear to plaintiff that Apple had not canceled thegift cards, but rather the gift cards had been cancelled by BestBuy . . . and that Apple would not accept the gift cards," thecomplaint states.

The terms of that settlement were not disclosed in either thenotice that appeared on the docket on June 16, 2014, afternoon orthe subsequent order signed by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote.

Apple had fought longest against several antitrust class actionsagainst it and publishers Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, Penguin,Hachette and HarperCollins.

While the other publishers settled those claims for a total of$166 million, Apple went to a bench trial last year that endedwith U.S. District Judge Denise Cote finding that it had played acentral role in the price-fixing conspiracy.

In preparing for a July damages trial, an expert for theplaintiffs put the figure at $280 million. That amount would havebeen tripled under antitrust law, their Seattle-based attorneySteve Berman explained.

On June 16, 2014, the parties announced that they had reached aconfidential settlement in advance of the appellate court'sruling.

"As set forth in the memorandum of understanding, any payment tobe made by Apple under the settlement agreement will be contingenton the outcome of that appeal," plaintiffs' attorney Berman wrotein a letter to the judge.

Cote signed an attached order the same day halting class actionnotification and setting a schedule to move toward thesettlement's approval.

Berman declined to reveal any details of the settlement. Applehas not returned a request for comment as of June 17, 2014.

The multidistrict litigation is known as In Re Electronic BooksAntitrust Litigation, MDL No. 11-md-02293 (DLC), in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York.

AVIS RENT: Removed "Hancock" Suit to Los Angeles District Court---------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned Kim Hancock v. Avis Rent A CarSystem, Inc. et al., Case No. BC544154, was removed from theSuperior Court of the State of California for the County of LosAngeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned CaseNo. 2:14-cv-04587-BRO-MAN to the proceeding.

Backyard Steakhouse, Inc., doing business as Backyard Bar & Grill,is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business inChantilly, Virginia. RFQ, Inc., doing business as Backyard Bar &Grill, is a Virginia corporation with its principal place ofbusiness in Manassas, Virginia. Robbie Qreitem is an officer andowner of BS and RFQ.

BANKRATE INC: To Settle Private Securities Class Action-------------------------------------------------------Bankrate, Inc. on June 9 disclosed that it has reached a proposedagreement, subject to Court approval, to settle the privatesecurities class action pending against the Company and certaincurrent and former officers of the Company.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate would pay atotal of $18 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve allclaims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwiseacquired Bankrate stock between June 16, 2011 and October 15,2012. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankratedenies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Bankrate's insurersare expected to fund at least a substantial portion of theSettlement Fund.

If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice tothe Class members will be sent with information regarding theallocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund andinstructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on theSettlement Fund.

BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Removed "Hoffman" Suit to N.J. District Court----------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Hoffman v. Barlean's Organic Oils,L.L.C., Case No. BER-L-04374-14, was removed from the SuperiorCourt of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court forthe District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03770-CCC-JBC to the proceeding.

Class members who purchased Bear Naked products between Sept. 21,2007, and May 1 may be eligible for benefits from the settlement.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that they purchased BearNaked food products based, at least in part, on the allegedlymisleading statements printed on the products' labels that theproducts were "100% Natural" or "100% Pure & Natural."

Bear Naked denies that it did anything wrong and asserts that itslabels were truthful and consistent with the law.

On May 27, the order preliminarily approving the settlement wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia.

The proposed settlement provides for monetary relief to thesettlement class by requiring Bear Naked to pay $325,000 into asettlement fund.

Chanee Thurston, the named plaintiff in the class action, mayapply for a $2,000 incentive award from the settlement fund,according to the order.

Class members may seek reimbursement of $.50 per package for everyBear Naked product purchased between Sept. 21, 2007, and May 1.Those without proof of purchase can submit a claim for up to $10per household.

In 2011, the plaintiff filed her class action complaint againstBear Naked, and it and another class action complaint against thecompany were consolidated. On March 12, 2012, the first amendedconsolidated complaint was filed.

On April 11, 2012, Bear Naked filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaint and on July 16, 2012, the court granted in part anddenied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, according to theorder.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California casenumber: 3:11-cv-02890

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Judge Axes Two Claims in Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jerseyfederal judge on June 6 axed two claims in a putative class actionaccusing BMW of North America LLC of knowingly selling cars withdefective navigation systems, but said it's too early to toss theclass action allegations.

U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares dismissed on June 6 the suit'saccusations of unjust enrichment and multistate class allegations,but said BMW's attempts to also get the general class actionallegations thrown out are premature. BMW moved to dismiss theproposed class action in mid-February.

"The court grants defendant's motion insofar as it moved todismiss plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim and multistate classallegations," Judge Linares wrote. "The court concludes that thearguments raised by defendant in support of its request to strikeor dismiss plaintiff's class action allegations are prematuregiven the early stage of this litigation."

The case launched in December 2013, when William B. McGuire fileda putative class action alleging BMW sold or leased vehicles withdefective navigation systems, despite knowing of the defects'existence.

According to Mr. McGuire's complaint, BMW marketed the navigationsystems as "reliable, accurate, detailed and quick to update."BMW also claimed the navigation systems offered real-time trafficinformation that would be updated every three minutes, along withother capabilities, the suit says.

In reality, the navigation systems failed to display local real-time traffic information for the vehicle's immediate area, andalso failed to automatically reroute vehicles to help avoidtraffic. The suit alleges that BMW knew about the defects,"possibly as early as June 2012," and that the company"nevertheless misrepresented the navigation system to havequalities it did not have."

Judge Linares tossed McGuire's claim of unjust enrichment becausethe suit only alleges that BMW concealed certain defects andmisrepresented the abilities of the navigation system -- not thatMcGuire didn't receive the product he had purchased.

"The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a faciallyplausible claim of unjust enrichment because the conductunderlying plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim sounds in tort."

Judge Linares also said that McGuire "lacks standing" to assertclaims for a multistate class action, noting that he cannot assertclaims "under the laws of the states in which he does not reside,or in which he suffered no injury."

As for Mr. McGuire's general class action allegations, JudgeLinares said that it's simply too early in the process to make adefinitive decision either way, writing that the court cannot"reasonably at this time" determine the validity of his classaction claims.

Judge Linares said that Mr. McGuire has until July 31 to amend hisclaims "to the extent he is able to cure the noted pleadingdeficiencies."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to pay them andother similarly situated construction and labor employees at therate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for allhours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

BROOKFIELD DTLA: Seeks Final Approval of Settlement in Stock Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------A final approval of a settlement reached in the Common StockActions against Brookfield entities is being sought, according toBrookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc.'s May 15, 2014,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, amongother things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directorsbreached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger byfailing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. andignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, andthat the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided andabetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action furtheralleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breachesof fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches offiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. OnJune 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed anamended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Californiain Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well asthe Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxystatement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to includecertain details of the process leading up to the merger and failsto provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought onbehalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, theplaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into theMerger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breachedthe Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPGpreferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directorsbreached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreementthat violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights andthat the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided andabetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15,2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a jointamended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s boardof directors failed to disclose material information regardingBPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction againstthe merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event themerger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, includingattorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks anduncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties andthe other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed amemorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposedsettlement of all claims asserted therein. The partiessubsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement datedNovember 21, 2013 providing for the release of all assertedclaims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger madeprior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, ofan award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not toexceed $475,000 (which will ultimately be determined by theCalifornia State Court), which has been recorded as a liability asof March 31, 2014 as part of accounts payable and otherliabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. Theasserted claims will not be released until such stipulation ofsettlement is approved by the court, following a hearing on noticeto the proposed class. There can be no assurance that the courtwill approve the settlement. The hearing for final approval of thesettlement is scheduled for June 4, 2014.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, theMaryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminaryinjunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffsfiled a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that addedadditional arguments in support of their allegations that the newpreferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferredshares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amendedcomplaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motionconcluded on February 28, 2014. A hearing date on the motion hasnot been scheduled by the court.

CANNAVEST CORP: Shareholder Sues Over Alleged "Securities Fraud"----------------------------------------------------------------CannaVEST Corp. is facing a stockholder complaint allegingsecurities fraud, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class actioncomplaint alleging securities fraud and related claims against theCompany and certain officers and directors. Ms. Sallustro allegesthat between March 18 and 31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares ofthe Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.00.The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and CurrentReports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previouslydisclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 wererestated to $1,082,375 -- reduction of $192,625) and restatedgoodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).

Additionally, the complaint states after the filing of theCompany's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and thefollowing press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 pershare, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share."

The Company has not yet answered the complaint and managementintends to vigorously defend the allegations.

CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Wins Partial Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. filed a motion to dismissan amended securities complaint, which was granted in part anddenied in part by the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2013 and November 2013, three securities class actionlawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of itsexecutive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages inthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (theCourt). These complaints, which were substantially identical,purported to state a claim for violation of federal securitieslaws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the Company'scommon stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two ofthe cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and theCourt granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the third case onJanuary 3, 2014. However, the Court granted leave to theplaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 20 days.On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaintagainst the Company and one of its executive officers seekingunspecified damages. The amended complaint purports to state aclaim for alleged misrepresentations regarding the development ofFirdapse on behalf of a class of those who purchase the Company'scommon stock between August 27, 2013 and October 18, 2013. InFebruary 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint, which was granted in part and denied in part by theCourt.

The company is vigorously defending this lawsuit. While there canbe no assurance, the Company does not expect this lawsuit to havea material adverse effect on the Company, and no amounts have beenaccrued with respect to this potential contingent liability in theaccompanying March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 balance sheets.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., is a foreign business corporationincorporated in Washington. Convergent is a debt collector thatuses the mail, the telephone and other means to collect defaultedconsumer debts owed or due or alleged to be owed or due to others.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike Complaint,pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (f),respectively.

District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong grants the motion todismiss and denies the alternative motion to strike for a moredefinite statement as moot. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend.

The Plaintiff is given 21 days from the date the Order is filed tofile a First Amended Complaint, consistent with the Court'srulings. Plaintiff is advised that any additional factualallegations set forth in their amended complaint must be made ingood faith and consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

A copy of the District Court's May 28, 2014 order is available athttp://is.gd/Z0NIMmfrom Leagle.com.

Dominika Surzyn, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin MichaelLopatin -- lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com -- The Law Offices of HowardW. Rubinstein, P.A..

The Plaintiff contends that her termination was retaliatory andarose from her complaints and opposition to the Defendant'sunlawful acts and practices. She discloses that prior to beingable to "clock in" in the morning she would routinely performuncompensated work for the Defendant, including unlocking thedoors, turning o the lights, booting up the computer, disarmingthe security system, opening the safe, and preparing the register.

Express Stores, LLC, is a New Jersey Limited LiabilityCorporation, with a corporate office located in East Brunswick,New Jersey. The Defendant owns and operates over 50 T-Mobileretail stores and has more than 300 employees.

GAF MATERIALS: Can't Escape Class Action Over Defective Shingles----------------------------------------------------------------Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that roofing materialsmanufacturer GAF Materials Corp. on June 6 failed to persuade aSouth Carolina federal judge to decertify a class action accusingit of making defective shingles that damaged the roofs of houses.U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs denied GAF's bid todecertify the class of South Carolina consumers with GAF shinglesmanufactured in its Alabama facility between 1999 to 2007, whichhave cracked or torn. The judge shot down GAF's arguments thatthe damages calculation would require an individual assessment.

The plaintiffs, Jack Brooks and Ellen Brooks, who won classcertification in October 2012, had sought the cost of replacingthe cracked, split or torn shingles on their roof, which isroughly $245 per square of shingle that must be replaced,according to the opinion. This damages methodology is consistentwith their classwide liability theory, Judge Childs said.

"It is conceivable that the only individualized factors that needto be determined at trial are the number of squares of shingles oneach class member's house and whether the class member seeksconsequential damages," the judge said in her ruling.

GAF had argued for decertification, pointing to the U.S. SupremeCourt's ruling in Comcast v. Behrend, in which the high court hadruled that courts should review the plaintiffs' proposed damagescalculation methodology at the certification stage to make sure itmatches the classwide theory of liability.

GAF had argued that in the current case, the damages assessmentwould require an individual evaluation of each roof, and that theextent to which the shingles may have cracked may vary, accordingto the opinion.

The case is Brooks et al v. GAF Materials Corp., case number 8:11-cv-00983, in the U.S. District Court for the District of SouthCarolina.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Benton" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL-----------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit styled Sylvia Benton v. GeneralMotors LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00590, was transferred from the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York (FoleySquare). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.1:14-cv-04268-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Kelley" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL-----------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit titled Devora Kelley v. GeneralMotors Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-00465, was transferred from theU.S. District Court for the Central District of California to theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (FoleySquare). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.1:14-cv-04272-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "McConnell" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL----------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Katie Michelle McConnell v.General Motors LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00424, was transferred fromthe U.S. District Court for the Central District of California tothe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York(Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned CaseNo. 1:14-cv-04270-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Ponce" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Martin Ponce v. General MotorsLLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02161, was transferred from the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York (FoleySquare). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.1:14-cv-04265-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Ramirez" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned Esperanza Ramirez, et al. v.General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02344, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central Districtof California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assignedCase No. 1:14-cv-04267-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Satele" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL-----------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned Teleso Satele, et al. v.General Motors LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00485, was transferred fromthe U.S. District Court for the Central District of California tothe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York(Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned CaseNo. 1:14-cv-04273-JMF to the proceeding.

The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design ofGM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switchsystem, which is susceptible to failure during normal drivingconditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switchturns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or"accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speedcontrol, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags.GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles.

GENERAL MOTORS: "Woodward" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Woodward v. General Motors LLC, etal., Case No. 1:14-cv-01877, was transferred from the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York. The NewYork District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04226-JMF tothe proceeding.

The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation captionedIn Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No.1:14-md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged defectiveignition switches used in certain GM vehicles.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statementsor failed to disclose that the Company had accounting errors, andthat, as a result, the Company's revenue and financial resultswere overstated, Mr. Ansfield contends.

The Hertz Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered inPark Ridge, New Jersey. Hertz Global Holdings is a Delawarecorporation headquartered in Naples, Florida. The IndividualDefendants are directors and officers of Hertz. Hertz is one ofthe nation's largest automobile and equipment rental companies.

Hittite Microwave Corporation is a Delaware corporation withprincipal executive offices in Chelmsford, Massachusetts. Hittiteis a global company serving customers worldwide with substantialinternational operations, including R&D centers and manufacturing.The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of theCompany.

Analog Devices, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation with itsprincipal executive offices located in Norwood, Massachusetts.BBAC Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a wholly ownedsubsidiary of defendant Analog. Upon completion of the ProposedTransaction, BBAC will merge with and into Hittite and cease itsseparate corporate existence.

IBERIA LINEAS: Bid to Reopen Discovery in Giannopoulos Case Nixed-----------------------------------------------------------------James Varsamis, Lauren Mitchell Varsamis, Theodoros Giannopoulos,and Alexandra Giannopoulos purchased airline tickets for travelbetween the United States and Europe and, for at least parts oftheir trips, traveled on aircraft operated by Iberia L¡neas Aereasde Espana. Plaintiffs' flights were delayed, and they brought aputative class action alleging breach of contract (Count I), andviolation of a European Union regulation that requirescompensation for airline delays under certain circumstances (CountII). Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking tohave the Giannopouloses and the Varsamises appointed classrepresentatives. After Plaintiffs filed a second amendedcomplaint, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for classcertification, this time seeking to have only the Varsamisesappointed class representatives, because Plaintiffs' counsel haddetermined that the Giannopouloses' "claims [were] not amenable toclass treatment due to the nature of their flights."

On February 12, 2014, prior to deciding Plaintiffs' motion forclass certification, the Court granted summary judgment to Iberiaon the Varsamis Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (Count I),and dismissed the claim for violation of a European Unionregulation (Count II) as to Plaintiffs altogether. Additionally,the Giannopouloses have now accepted a settlement offer Iberiamade pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

In light of the Court's rulings and the Giannopouloses'settlement, none of the named Plaintiffs -- neither the Varsamisesnor the Giannopouloses -- have live claims before the Court.Plaintiffs' counsel, however, has filed a "motion to reopendiscovery for the purpose of identifying substitute classrepresentatives and for an order authorizing plaintiffs' counselto engage in pre-certification communications with putative classmembers." Meanwhile, Iberia has filed a motion to dismiss theGiannopouloses for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(1), and to enter final judgment as to allclaims.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated May 29, 2014, a copy ofwhich is available at http://is.gd/rg0Fsvfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Thomas M. Durkin ruled that the Plaintiffs'counsel's "motion to reopen discovery for the purpose ofidentifying substitute class representatives and for an orderauthorizing plaintiffs' counsel to engage in pre-certificationcommunications with putative class members," is denied, andIberia's motion to dismiss the Giannopouloses for lack ofjurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), andto enter final judgment as to all claims is granted. As to CountI, judgment is entered in favor of the Giannopouloses and againstIberia in the amount of $1,652.16, and judgment is entered infavor of Iberia and against the Varsamises. As to Count II,judgment is entered in favor of Iberia and against all Plaintiffs.The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot.The parties will bear their own costs.

IMH FINANCIAL: Results of Class Settlement Offerings Disclosed--------------------------------------------------------------In its May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, IMHFinancial Corporation disclosed results of class settlementofferings.

Under the terms of the class action settlement with the company'sshareholders, in the first quarter of 2014, the company offered toclass members: 1) up to $20.0 million of 4% five-year subordinatedunsecured notes to class members in exchange for up toapproximately 2.5 million shares of the company's common stock atan exchange rate of one share per $8.02 in subordinated notes("Exchange Offering"); and 2) up to $10.0 million of convertiblenotes to Class members that are accredited investors, with thesame financial terms as the convertible notes previously issued toNW Capital ("Rights Offering"). The company commenced the ExchangeOffering and the Rights Offering on February 12, 2014, whichremained open for 25 business days and were closed forsubscription on March 20, 2014. Following the review of certaindocumentation submitted by participating shareholders thatrequired additional administrative attention, as well as thecoordination and execution of final documents, the companycompleted the issuance of notes under the Exchange Offering andthe Rights Offering on April 28, 2014. The final results of theofferings were as follows:

Accounting for the Class Settlement

As a result of the collective nature of the settlement terms underthe Final Order, which consisted of a cash settlement, theExchange Offering, and the Rights Offering, for financialreporting purposes these transactions are considered a singulartransaction. As a result, the net effect of the fair value of thecomponents of this transaction were recorded as a net settlementcharge during the year ended December 31, 2013, which was accruedat March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The final amount ofsettlement loss resulting from these transactions is not expectedto vary materially from the amount previously reported in Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013. Accordingly noadditional charges related to the settlement were recorded duringthe period ended March 31, 2014.

IRVING OIL: Lawyers to Defend Train Derailment Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Patrick Rucker, Euan Rocha and Sandra Maler, writing for Reuters,report that shippers wrongly moved explosive gas as part of acrude oil delivery that derailed and killed 47 people in aCanadian town last year, lawyers seeking to represent thedevastated town in a class action lawsuit were expected to arguein a proceeding that starts on June 9.

Several tank cars exploded with surprising force when the cargofrom North Dakota's Bakken energy patch jumped the tracks anddetonated in downtown Lac Megantic, Quebec, last July.

Since that deadly mishap, U.S. officials have warned that Bakkenfuel is more volatile than previously thought because of thepresence of dangerous gas and have encouraged shippers to bleedoff that gas before moving it on the rails.

But lawyers from the Toronto class action law firm Rochon GenovaLLP were expected to argue that oil companies were alert to Bakkenfuel dangers well before the Lac Megantic tragedy, and failed tohandle the fuel safely on the tracks.

Shippers and others in the supply chain "simply ignored the needto take any meaningful steps to properly test, warn, label orclassify the oil," according to documents filed last week.

Those allegations have not been tested in court.

Rochon Genova was expected on June 9 to argue in the QuebecSuperior Court that residents and others who suffered loss due tothe accident should treated as a single group of claimants in aclass-action.

Although the discovery process has yet to formally begin, policefindings and industry paperwork already point to a haphazardshipping process, the law firm said.

For at least eight months before the accident, oil train cargoroutinely arrived at the Irving Oil refinery labeled as the least-dangerous class of flammable liquid, and near-empty tankersreturned to the field carrying a higher warning, according to aQuebec police report.

A month before the Lac Megantic disaster, an Irving Oil executivenoted that fuel testing at the source "is almost non-existent,"according to a company Power Point presentation seen by Reuters.

Irving Oil did not respond to a request for comment. Besides therefinery, the plaintiffs are suing other companies that they sayhandled the fuel, such as World Fuel Services Corp, which arrangedthe delivery.

World Fuel Services has argued in court filings that the raildisaster was chiefly a human error and nothing in the labeling, orpackaging could have changed the outcome.

"While petitioners desire to find a solvent entity -- any solvententity -- to compensate for their losses, their allegations simplycannot logically support pinning that liability on WFS," thefirm's lawyers said in a filing.

Rochon Genova was also expected to argue that officials atTransport Canada, the federal transportation authority, shouldanswer for lax oversight before the accident. The arguments areexpected to last for about two weeks.

JOHN HANCOCK: First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that John HancockLife Insurance Company did not breach its contract in a classaction lawsuit in regard to how it handed unclaimed insurancepolicy proceeds.

The appeals court ruled that Richard Feingold's class actionlawsuit against John Hancock Life Insurance Company and JohnHancock Life & Health Insurance Company was properly dismissed forfailure to state a claim, according to the May 27 opinion.

Sandra Lynch, Bruce M. Selya and William J. Kayatta made theruling, while Lynch authored the opinion.

Mr. Feingold sued the defendants for damages said to have arisenfrom Hancock's adherence to contractual terms requiring that it begiven notice of the death of its insureds before death benefitsare paid out to beneficiaries, according to the opinion.

"Specifically, Hancock is said to have an obligation, stemmingfrom a regulatory agreement between Hancock and several states, todiscover such deaths and notify beneficiaries," the opinionstates. "The district court dismissed the complaint for failureto state a claim."

On appeal, Mr. Feingold primarily argued the agreement Hancockentered with several state governments in June 2011 regarding itshandling of unclaimed insurance policy proceeds imposed newobligations on Hancock as to beneficiaries of its insureds understate law.

The appeals court disagreed and affirmed the district court'sdecision to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

Mr. Feingold filed the class action complaint on Jan. 30, 3013,alleging that Hancock owed Mr. Feingold damages based on itshandling of unclaimed benefits under its life insurance policies.

On Feb. 26, 2013, Hancock moved to dismiss the complaint and thedistrict court held a hearing on July 25, 2013, and issued amemorandum and order granting Hancock's motion to dismiss on Aug.19, 2013.

The court applied both Massachusetts and Illinois law toFeingold's claims because it concluded that the relevant laws ofboth states were the same and so it did not need to resolve thechoice of law issue, according to the opinion.

"On appeal, Feingold challenges the district court's refusal toconsider the GRA in assessing the plausibility of his claims forunjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty," theopinion states. "He argues that Hancock breached the GRA and thatthis breach makes his common law claims plausible because he is athird-party beneficiary to the GRA."

Mr. Feingold also argues, in the alternative, that Hancock'sbreach of the Global Resolution Agreement supports his common lawclaims even if he is not a GRA third-party beneficiary, accordingto the opinion.

"These arguments fail because Feingold is not a third-partybeneficiary to the GRA, and so Hancock owes Feingold noenforceable duties under that agreement," the opinion states.

"At most, Feingold is an incidental, as opposed to direct,beneficiary of the GRA. This is particularly so given that theGRA is a contract with state governments.

"Hancock's compliance with a different section of the UnclaimedProperty Act based on an event unrelated to Mollie Feingold'sdeath does not state a plausible violation of Illinois law."

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit case number: 13-2151

KBR INC: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action in Texas--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a class actionlawsuit against KBR, Inc. and certain of its officers. The classaction, filed in United States District Court, District of Texas,and docketed under 4:14-cv-01572, is on behalf of a classconsisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwiseacquired KBR securities between April 25, 2013 and May 5, 2014,both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damagesagainst Defendants for alleged violations of the federalsecurities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased KBR securities during theClass Period, you have until July 8, 2014 to ask the Court toappoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.comTo discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), tollfree, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to includetheir mailing address, telephone number, and number of sharespurchased.

KBR is a global engineering, construction and services companysupporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power, minerals, civilinfrastructure, government services, industrial, and commercialmarket segments. KBR offers services through its GasMonetization, Hydrocarbons, Infrastructure, Government and Power("IGP"), Services and Other business segments.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed todisclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)the Company had improperly estimated costs to complete certaincontracts; (2) the Company had improperly recognized revenues;(3) as a result, the Company's revenue and financial results wereoverstated; (4) as such, the Company's financial statements werenot prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples ("GAAP"); (5) the Company lacked adequate internal andfinancial controls; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, theCompany's financial statements were materially false andmisleading at all relevant times.

On May 5, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed aCurrent Report with the SEC on Form 8-K announcing that the AuditCommittee of the Company's Board of Directors had determined thatthe Company's financial statements filed with the SEC on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 should no longer berelied upon. According to the Company, the material financialstatement errors were primarily attributable to how the Companyestimated costs to complete seven of its contracts, which resultedin pre-tax charges in excess of $150 million and the reversal ofover $20 million in previously recognized profits. In addition,the Company identified an overstatement error in its revenuerecognition on a long-term construction project of approximately$9.0 million pre-tax, and an understatement of its income taxprovision of approximately $6.5 million. The Company furtherannounced that it intends to restate its consolidated financialstatement for fiscal 2013, and will postpone filing its Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2014 until after the amended Form10-K is complete.

On this news, shares of KBR declined $1.61 per share, or nearly7%, to close on May 5, 2014, at $24.23 per share, on unusuallyheavy volume.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, ThePomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, knownas the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneeredthe field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 yearslater, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition heestablished, fighting for the rights of the victims of securitiesfraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. TheFirm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards onbehalf of class members.

"Since the Court has already denied the Class CertificationMotion, and in doing so considered the proposed class contained inthe Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that it isappropriate to order removal of the class action allegations fromthe Second Amended Complaint," ruled District Judge William J.Martinez in his order dated May 28, 2014, a copy of which isavailable at http://is.gd/WgNCMpfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff had argued that the Motion to Strike is overly broadin that Defendant seeks to strike allegations which are notexclusive to Plaintiff's class allegations. Judge Martinez agreedwith this aspect of Plaintiff's argument. "Only allegationsspecific to the class action, paragraphs 71-80, will be strickenfrom the Second Amended Complaint," he said.

Accordingly, Judge Martinez concluded that the Defendant's Motionto Strike the Class Allegations and Claims in Plaintiff's SecondAmended Complaint is granted in part; and the Plaintiff's SecondAmended Complaint will be deemed amended by the removal ofParagraphs 71-80.

LIHUA INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a class actionlawsuit against Lihua International, Inc. and certain of itsofficers. The class action, filed in United States DistrictCourt, Central District of California, and docketed under 2:14-cv-03503, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons orentities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lihua securitiesbetween August 9, 2012 and April 30, 2014 both dates inclusive.This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants foralleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant toSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lihua securities during theClass Period, you have until June 30, 2014 to ask the Court toappoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.comTo discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), tollfree, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to includetheir mailing address, telephone number, and number of sharespurchased.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclosematerial adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,prospects and performance. Specifically, Defendants issued falseand misleading statements about the Company's business andfinancial condition. Throughout the Class Period, the Companyfailed to disclose that: (1) Lihua's business experienced asignificant downturn starting from late 2012; (2) Lihua'sproduction activities slowed down dramatically in 2013, and havealmost ceased after January 31, 2014; (3) Lihua's warehouse hasbeen seized by the People's Republic of China court; (4) defendantJianhua Zhu, Lihua's Chairman and CEO, attempted to move inventoryin order to hide them from creditors, and is now beinginvestigated by the police for larceny.

On March 28, 2014, People's Daily, the official newspaper of thegovernment of China, published a report exposing Lihua's troubles(the "People's Daily Report"). The People's Daily Report statedthat: (1) Lihua's cash flow has ceased, and its warehouse has beenseized and sealed by the local court; (2) Lihua's productionactivities substantially decreased in 2013, and have nearly ceasedafter the 2014 Spring Festival (January 31, 2014); (3) Zhuattempted to move Lihua's inventory in order to hide assets fromcreditors, and as a result, he is now being investigated by thelocal police for larceny.

U.S. investors were made aware of these problems for the firsttime on April 30, 2014, when GeoInvesting publicized the contentsof the People's Daily Report. On this news, shares of Lihua'sstock to fell by more than 50% on April 30, 2014, from $4.33 to$2.08 per share, before it was halted by NASDAQ stock exchange.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, ThePomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, knownas the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneeredthe field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 yearslater, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition heestablished, fighting for the rights of the victims of securitiesfraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. TheFirm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards onbehalf of class members.

Lyft, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in SanFrancisco, California. The Company is engaged in transportationand taxi business. The true names and capacities of the DoeDefendants are currently unknown.

MARKIT LTD: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Credit Default Swaps-------------------------------------------------------------Markit Ltd. is one of the defendants in a consolidated lawsuitpending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York over alleged violations of federal and state antitrustlaws in connection with credit default swaps, according to thecompany's May 15, 2014, Form F-1 filing (Amendment No.1) with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2014.

Since May 2013, Markit has been named as a defendant with theDealers and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association ina number of putative class action lawsuits filed in U.S. courtsand arising out of allegations of violations of federal and stateantitrust laws in connection with credit default swaps. The namedplaintiffs in each case include pension funds, investmentmanagement funds and other buy-side firms who conduct businessactivities involving credit default swaps. All cases were filedeither in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District ofIllinois or the Southern District of New York. On October 16,2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferredall cases to the Southern District of New York and on December 13,2013, the court consolidated all such cases for pre-trialpurposes.

The primary allegations by plaintiffs are that the defendantsconspired to prevent competitors from offering execution andclearing services for exchange-traded credit default swaps andthat the defendants conspired to fix and maintain credit defaultswap bid/ask spreads in the OTC market above the spreads thatwould have been realized with the development of exchange tradingof credit default swaps. The substance of plaintiffs' request forrelief seeks a permanent injunction foreclosing defendants fromcontinuing their alleged anticompetitive actions and trebleddamages in an unspecified amount, plus interest, attorneys' feesand costs of suit.

There can be no assurance as to the outcome of the ECinvestigation, the DOJ investigation, or the class actionlawsuits, but they could have a material adverse effect onMarkit's business, financial condition and results of operations.

MATHESON TRI-GAS: "Ambriz" Suit Transferred to C.D. California--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Larry Ambriz, et al. v. MathesonTri-Gas, Case No. 4:14-cv-01041-CW, was transferred from U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland)to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California(Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.2:14-cv-04546-JAK-JC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit against the Defendant, allegingcertain causes of action, including failure to provide mealperiods and rest breaks. The Plaintiffs seek to represent "allcurrent and former California-based truck drivers employed byMatheson four years prior to the filing" of the complaint.

Matheson Tri-Gas is a Delaware corporation headquartered inBasking Ridge, New Jersey. Matheson provides scientific gas andequipment to various companies in California and globally.

Judge Bruce concluded that the Plaintiff's estimate of groupmembership is speculative and not properly supported and neitherPlaintiff nor the record establish that there is an objective,reasonable way to ascertain potential class members. Accordingly,the Plaintiff has not met the numerosity requirement of Rule23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the District Court's May 28, 2014 Opinion is availableat http://is.gd/eEVWRqfrom Leagle.com.

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Summary Judgment Appealed in Suit Over TCA-------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a suit against Metropolitan Life Insurance Companyover its use of the Total Control Account (TCA), are appealing thegrant of summary judgment to the company to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company'sMay 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The putative class action lawsuits -- Keife, et al. v.Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state courton July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7,2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,filed November 3, 2011 -- have been consolidated, raise breach ofcontract claims arising from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company'suse of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the FederalEmployees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, thecourt granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion forsummary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Owens" Suit in Georgia Over TCA Continues-------------------------------------------------------------The suit Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, filed April17, 2014, is continuing in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Georgia, according to the company's May 15,2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that Metropolitan LifeInsurance Company's use of the Total Control Account (TCA) as thesettlement option for life insurance benefits under some grouplife insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life InsuranceCompany's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeksdisgorgement of profits that Metropolitan Life Insurance Companyrealized on accounts owned by members of the putative class.

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Indemnity Claim from Sun Life in Canada----------------------------------------------------------------Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is seeking indemnity fromMetropolitan Life Insurance Company for sales practices claimsrelated to policies sold by Metropolitan Life and transferred toSun Life, according to Metropolitan Life's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), assuccessor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life InsuranceCompany's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seekinga declaration that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company remainsliable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individuallife insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life InsuranceCompany and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life hadasked that the court require Metropolitan Life Insurance Companyto indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnityprovisions in the sale agreement for the sale of Metropolitan LifeInsurance Company's Canadian operations entered into in June of1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had giventimely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because itfound that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss,granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summaryjudgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed towithdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim througharbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MetropolitanLife Insurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit wasfiled against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co.(Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practicesclaims regarding the same individual policies sold by MetropolitanLife Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. An amendedclass action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May2013, again without naming Metropolitan Life Insurance Company asa party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan LifeInsurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filedagainst Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co.(Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging salespractices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold byMetropolitan Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life.Sun Life contends that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company isobligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims inthese lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life areongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonablypossible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Trials in TCPA Violations Suits Set in August----------------------------------------------------------------Trials in lawsuits against Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., allegingviolation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, has been setfor August 2014, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, includingMetropolitan Life Insurance Company and a former MetLife financialservices representative, alleging that the defendants sentunsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others inviolation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended bythe Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). Inthe C-Mart case, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify aclass of approximately 36,000 persons in Missouri who, during theperiod of August 7, 2012 through September 6, 2012, were allegedlysent an unsolicited fax in violation of the TCPA. Trial is set forAugust 2014. In the Cadenasso case, which has been transferred toFlorida and assigned to the same judge as the C-Mart case,plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class of persons(except for those in the C-Mart class) who were allegedly sentmillions of unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA. Trial hasalso been set in Cadenasso for August 2014. In both cases,plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages under the TCPA inthe amount of $500 for each violation and to have such damagestrebled.

MONSANTO COMPANY: "Crouch" Suit Joined in Engineered Wheat MDL--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Crouch, et al. v. MonsantoCompany, Case No. 3:14-cv-00126, was transferred from the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). TheKansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02285-KHV-KMH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidatedpretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation titled In re:MDL 2473 Monsanto Company Genetically-Engineered Wheat Litigation.

The litigation arises from the contamination of domesticconventional wheat fields with unapproved genetically-engineeredwheat developed by Monsanto. According to the complaints, theexistence of genetically-engineered wheat in domestic marketchannels caused a decline in U.S. wheat prices.

NATROL INC: "Dao" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL--------------------------------------------------------------The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationordered the transfer of the class action lawsuit styled Dao v.Natrol, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02433, from the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). TheMaryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01869-JFMto the proceeding.

The lawsuit will be included in the multidistrict litigation knownas In Re: Natrol, Inc., Glucosamine/Chondroitin Marketing andSales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02528-JFM.

The Defendants distribute, market, and sell Natrol GlucosamineChondroitin supplements a line of Glucosamine and Chondroitinbased supplements that purportedly provides a variety of healthbenefits focused on improving joint health, mobility, flexibility,and lubrication.

In her complaint, Linda Dao alleges that the Defendants'advertising claims are false, misleading, and reasonably likely todeceive the public. She contends that contrary to the Defendants'claims, the Products have no efficacy at all, and that theProducts are ineffective in the improvement of joint health,provide no benefits related to the reduction of pain in humanjoints, and do not protect cartilage from breakdown.

NATROL INC: "Eisner" Suit Included in Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL-----------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit titled Eisner v. Natrol, Inc.,Case No. 2:13-cv-05831, was transferred from the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The MarylandDistrict Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01871-JFM to theproceeding.

The lawsuit will be included in the multidistrict litigation knownas In Re: Natrol, Inc., Glucosamine/Chondroitin Marketing andSales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02528-JFM.

Natrol, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered inChatsworth, California. Natrol is a step-down, wholly ownedsubsidiary of Plethico Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., a publicly-tradedpharmaceutical corporation based in Mumbai, India. Natroloperates in the herbal and nutraceutical sphere, predominantly inthe United States of America. Natrol manufactures and sells aportfolio of healthcare and wellness brands representingnutritional supplements, functional herbal teas and sportsnutritional products.

One of Natrol's major products, which falsely purport to repair orregrow cartilage and to improve joint health is Natrol'sGlucosamine Chondroitin MSM, Troy Eisner contends in hiscomplaint. He alleges that Natrol's claims are scientificallyunsound, false and misleading because its products cannot helprepair, regenerate or rebuild cartilage or improve joint health.

NEVADA PROPERTY: CoStars Still Unable to Get Certification----------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Nevada Property 1 LLC in theU.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for allegedimproper rounding off of time for hours worked have repeatedlybeen denied certification, according to the company's May 15,2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served withtwo separate purported class action lawsuits related to allegedunpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars' while onProperty for donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform,alleged improper rounding of time for hours worked and variousother claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of thepurported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in theEighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, and oneis pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.The discovery period as to liability has closed in both cases. Amotion to certify the class was filed in the Eighth JudicialDistrict Court for Clark County, Nevada in late-March 2014. Amotion to conditionally certify certain classes of employees wasfiled in the federal court action, but that motion has been deniedin part and stayed in part. A recently filed renewed motion tocertify a subset of employees was denied by the court in the U.S.District action. Substantial questions of law and fact remainunresolved in both cases.

During the second quarter of 2013, as part of an ongoingassessment of the company's wage and hour cases, the companyaccrued an estimated loss contingency of $3.0 million (reported asa corporate operating expense in the condensed consolidatedstatement of operations beginning with the June 30, 2013 quarterlyreporting period). A portion of the loss contingency was utilizedin the October 2013 settlement of a third purported wage and hourclass action matter, with subsequent payment occurring during thefirst quarter of 2014.

NEVADA PROPERTY: Faces Suit in Cal. for "Unlawful" Call Recording-----------------------------------------------------------------Nevada Property 1 LLC is facing a lawsuit that is in the earlieststages of proceedings, for alleged violation of the CaliforniaPenal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording of calls,according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2012 in Superior Court in the State ofCalifornia against the Company, alleging violation of theCalifornia Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recordingof calls. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, orin the alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15,2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia issued an order denying these Company motions.

This matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings. Meaningfuldiscovery has not commenced, no depositions have occurred, and nomotions to certify a class or subclasses have been filed.

Substantial questions of law and fact are unresolved. Specificadditional factors applicable to this case that prevent theCompany from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss orrange of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether classcertification will be granted and the scope of any class orsubclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damagesclaimed by the purported class are unspecified or indeterminate;and (3) the outcome of any future settlement negotiations, shouldthey occur, as they may apply to limit the class or eliminate allclass claims. As a result, the Company cannot at this timedetermine the potential impact of the lawsuit on the consolidatedfinancial position, cash flows, or results of operations of theCompany.

NEVADA PROPERTY: Provides Updates on Condominium Hotel Litigation-----------------------------------------------------------------Nevada Property 1 LLC provides updates on a number of lawsuits andarbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium hotelunits located within the East and West Towers of the Property, inits May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The thrust of the claims were virtually the same in every matter.The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the project hadmaterially changed and that delays in the completion of theProperty constituted a material breach by the Company, thuspermitting the plaintiff/purchaser to rescind their contract andreceive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plusinterest thereon. The Company was represented in each of thesematters by outside legal counsel.

On or about August 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit wasfiled against the Company in the U.S. District Court for theCentral District of California, captioned Lenny Spangler v. NevadaProperty 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among other things, that formerclass action settlements entered into by the Company with buyersof condominium hotel units in the project were fraudulentlyinduced, and seeking to recover all amounts paid to or retained bythe Company in such settlements. During 2014, the plaintiff agreedto dismiss the case in exchange for a waiver and release by theCompany of its claims for costs related to the lawsuit. A formalorder of dismissal was subsequently entered with the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Nevada.

At December 31, 2013, there were two condominium hotel unitsremaining under contract at The Cosmopolitan (the "Okada Unit" andthe "Mastej Unit"). During the three months ended March 31, 2014,the Company prevailed in its efforts to confirm and enforce priorarbitration awards for each of the Okada Unit and the Mastej Unit.As such, the applicable earnest money deposits were released tothe Company.

On or about March 3, 2014, a complaint was filed against theCompany in the U.S. District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia, captioned Donald Okada v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, etal., alleging, among other things, that former class actionsettlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominiumhotel units in the project were fraudulently induced thuspermitting the plaintiff to recover the full earnest money depositand related attorney fees. This matter is in the earliest stagesof proceedings. Discovery has not commenced.

On or about April 1, 2014, for the Mastej Unit, a Notice of Appealwas filed with the Nevada Supreme Court regarding the grant of theCompany's motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award.This matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings.

OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Pomerantz Firm Files Securities Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a class actionlawsuit against Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC and certainof its officers. The class action, filed in United StatesDistrict Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under14-cv-3251, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons orentities who purchased or otherwise acquired Och-Ziff securitiesbetween February 9, 2012 and April 25, 2014, both dates inclusive.This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants foralleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant toSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Och-Ziff securities duringthe Class Period, you have until July 7, 2014 to ask the Court toappoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.comTo discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), tollfree, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to includetheir mailing address, telephone number, and number of sharespurchased.

Och-Ziff is a publicly owned investment management company thatwas founded in 1994 and is based New York, New York withadditional offices in London, United Kingdom; Hong Kong; Tokyo,Japan; Bangalore, India; and Beijing, China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclosematerial adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period,defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failedto disclose that: (i) the Company violated relevant anti-briberylaws by accepting an investment from the Libyan InvestmentAuthority, a sovereign wealth fund; (ii) the Company loaned $234million to help finance two ventures in the Democratic Republic ofCongo in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA");(iii) beginning in 2011, the Company received subpoenas from theSecurities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the United StatesDepartment of Justice ("DOJ") in connection with the transactionsmentioned above; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company'sfinancial statements were materially false and misleading at allrelevant times.

On February 3, 2014, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") reported thatthe U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") joined a wideninginvestigation of banks, private-equity firms and hedge funds,including Och-Ziff, relating to the possible violation of anti-bribery laws in their dealings with Libya's government-runinvestment fund. The article also stated that the criminalinvestigation by the DOJ was proceeding alongside a civil probe bythe SEC that began in 2011.

On the news, Och-Ziff stock fell $0.87, or 6.7%, to close at$12.08 on heavy volume.

On April 27, 2014, the WSJ published an article providing detailsabout the Och'Ziff investments in Africa under investigation bythe SEC and DOJ. The article stated that the probe centered ontwo loans totaling $234 million, to companies controlled by acontroversial mining executive, which helped finance two venturesin the Democratic Republic of Congo involving properties that werethe subject of ownership disputes.

On this news, shares in Och-Ziff fell $1.28, or almost 10%, onheavy trading volume, to close at $11.65 on April 28, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, ThePomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, knownas the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneeredthe field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 yearslater, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition heestablished, fighting for the rights of the victims of securitiesfraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. TheFirm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards onbehalf of class members.

QANTAS AIRWAYS: Court Approves Air Cargo Cartel Suit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Reuters reports that a A$38 million ($35 million) settlement of anAustralian class action suit against an air cargo cartel won courtapproval on June 6, said the law firm representing the buyers ofinternational air freight services, who brought the suit.

The case, launched in 2007 by importers and exporters of productsto and from Australia, said that airlines colluded to fix fuel andsecurity surcharges on international air freight services, saidlaw firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

Although Air New Zealand was also targeted in the class action,court approval of the settlement did not cover that airline, thelawyers said.

The pact, without admission of liability by the airlines, wasfirst announced in April.

Air cargo carriers have faced hefty penalties from competitionauthorities in Australia the European Commission and the UnitedStates for price fixing.

The Australian class action was funded by Bentham IMF Ltd.

RCS CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Proposed in Summit Merger Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Alleged Summit Financial Services Group shareholders who are suingRCS Capital Corporation over a planned merger moved for leave tofile an amended complaint under seal, according to RCS Capital'sMay 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Summit, its board of directors, the Company and a wholly ownedsubsidiary formed by the Company in connection with the Summitmerger are named as defendants in two purported class actionlawsuits (now consolidated) filed by alleged Summit shareholderson November 27, 2013 and December 12, 2013 in Palm Beach County,Florida challenging the Summit merger. These lawsuits allege,among other things, that: (1) each member of Summit's board ofdirectors breached his fiduciary duties to Summit and itsshareholders in authorizing the Summit merger; (2) the Summitmerger does not maximize value to Summit shareholders; and (3) thedefendants aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary dutyallegedly committed by the members of Summit's board of directors.These shareholder lawsuits seek class action certification andequitable relief, including an injunction against consummation ofthe Summit merger on the agreed-upon terms. On May 9, 2014, theplaintiff shareholders moved for leave to file an amendedcomplaint under seal. The amended complaint asserts claims similarto those in the original complaint, adds allegations relating toamendment of the Summit merger agreement on March 17, 2014, andalso challenges the adequacy of the disclosures in theregistration statement related to the issuance of shares of thecompany's Class A common stock as consideration in the Summitacquisition, the background of the transaction, the fairnessopinion issued to the Summit special committee, and Summit'sfinancial projections. The consolidated lawsuits seek class-actioncertification, equitable relief, including an injunction againstconsummation of the Summit acquisition on the agreed-upon terms,and damages.

RED ROBIN: Moved "Smith" Suit to San Diego Federal Court--------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned Smith, et al. v. Red RobinInternational, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2014-00008350-CU-OE-CTL,was removed from the Superior Court of California, San DiegoCounty, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned CaseNo. 3:14-cv-01432-JAH-BGS to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs John Sinibaldi and Nicolle DiSimone had appealed the2012 dismissal of their suit alleging Redbox violates the act byrequiring customers who obtain discs from the kiosks to providetheir ZIP codes. But the appeals panel said the act exemptstransactions like that, where the credit card is being used as adeposit to secure payment "in the event of default, loss, damageor similar occurrence."

The plaintiffs had challenged the district court's holding,contending that the act applies to Redbox kiosk transactionsbecause they are in-person, card-present transactions that presentless risk of fraud than online purchases. But the appeals panel,in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the dismissal on an alternative,rental deposit exception, ground.

The panel majority said while no precedent exists for thisparticular issue, it believes the California Supreme Court wouldhold that the exception applies here.

"The credit card information permits Redbox to collect theadditional amount owed should the customer choose to keep themovie or game for additional days or if it is never returned," thepanel said. "In other words, the credit card is 'being used as adeposit to secure payment in the event of default, loss, damage,or other similar occurrence.'"

According to the opinion, the plaintiffs argued that a Redboxtransaction does not involve a "deposit," by defining the term tomean "a prospective, contingent payment of money or value to aseller of goods or services to secure against some potentialloss."

But the panel called that an "artificially narrow" definition ofusing a credit card as a deposit to secure payment. It saidvendors such as rental car companies, hotels or Redbox may use acustomer's credit card to secure payment in multiple ways.

The different methods might vary in their transaction costs, levelof security, and the amount of remaining credit balance availableto the customer, but the panel said in each instance the creditcard is being used as a deposit to secure payment in the event ofdefault, loss, damage or other similar occurrence.

"All the methods fall within the language of the statutoryexclusion, both logically and literally," the panel said.

It said there is no reason to think that the Legislature, inenacting the statutory exception, limited it only to transactionswhere money is actually drawn from the customer's credit cardaccount in advance by the retailer.

"While we disagree with the court's decision, we understand thatit was writing on a blank slate. We appreciate the majority'snarrow ruling and their refusal to affirm the lower court's broadexemption of automated kiosks from the Credit Card Act. It isimportant to confirm that future technological advances do notexempt companies from existing laws," DiSimone's attorney Caleb LHMarker of Ridout Lyon & Ottoson LLP said on June 6.

The case is John Sinibaldi et al. v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC,case number 12-55234, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit.

RESEARCH MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Dumped Patient Records----------------------------------------------------------------Garrett Haake, writing for 41 Action News, reports that thedisposal of a still-unknown number of patient records in adumpster outside Research Medical Center last month could soonbecome an even more costly mistake for physicians group MidwestWomen's Healthcare Specialists.

A Kansas City attorney filed a class action lawsuit against thegroup on behalf of some of the women whose private information wascompromised. The lawsuit filed in Jackson County on June 3accuses MWHS of breaching its fiduciary duty to keep patientrecords confidential, and seeks unspecified damages, including"punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Defendant andothers from the same or similar conduct."

Attorney Maureen Brady filed the lawsuit, and in an interview onJune 6 appeared confident a jury would side with her clients,should the case proceed that far.

"You have to think to yourself: What is your most intimate secret?These women have charged their healthcare provider with their mostintimate secrets and that's lost, and it's lost forever," Ms.Brady said.

Ms. Brady currently has another privacy-related suit pendingagainst Research Medical Center.

On May 19, as many as a few hundred patient records were placed ina dumpster outside the MHWS practice at Research Medical Center,and wind scattered them around the hospital's neighborhood. Somewere recovered only days later, and it remains unclear if all thedocuments have been found even now.

"First and foremost, we sincerely apologize to Midwest Women'sHealthcare Specialist's patients who are affected by thisincident," the statement says. "We care deeply about our patientsand their privacy and are working diligently to investigate andremedy this situation."

The MWHS statement did not mention the lawsuit.

Last month, MWHS released a statement explaining that the records,which it called "billing" records as opposed to "medical records"were "mistakenly placed in a trash dumpster during a constructionproject."

41 Action News obtained some 70 individual patient records from aGood Samaritan. Those records included names, addresses, socialsecurity numbers and procedures performed on women on the day oftheir appointments, spanning from late 2011 to early 2012.

MWHS has said they believe they have recovered the majority of thedocuments lost that day, and that they have begun reaching out tothe women affected. Some patients reached by 41 Action News saidthey had been contacted by MWHS, but Brady said her clients hadnot.

"Once they realized their mistake, they should have taken everyeffort," she said on June 6. "They should have moved mountains toget that information back, and to mitigate the harm that they weredoing."

41 Action News returned some of the records we received toindividual patients, and the balance were returned to MWHS on May23rd. Some of the women we spoke to said they have beensubsequently contacted by MWHS.

Ms. Brady's lawsuit names only two women as plaintiffs, but shesaid on June 6 she expects that number to grow.

"We believe that there have been dozens, if not hundreds of otherpatients that have similar type injuries," she said.

SABRE CORP: To Appeal Judgment in Suit v. Online Travel Agents--------------------------------------------------------------Sabre Corporation intends to appeal to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit the final judgment made in a suit bythe City of San Antonio against Travelocity and other OnlineTravel Agencys according to Sabre's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2014.

On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment againstTravelocity and other OTAs,in a class action lawsuit filed by theCity of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a juryverdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels forpurposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that juryverdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees chargedby the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy taxes and that theOTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit these taxes. Thecompany disagrees with the jury's finding that it "control(s)"hotels, and with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the juryfinding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The company believes the Fifth Circuit's resolution of the SanAntonio appeal may be affected by a separate Texas state appellatecourt decision in the company's favor. On October 26, 2011, theFourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court'ssummary judgment ruling in favor of the OTAs in a case brought bythe City of Houston and the Harris County-Houston Sports Authorityon a similarly worded tax ordinance as the one at issue in the SanAntonio case. The Texas Supreme Court denied the City of Houston'spetition to review the case. The company believes this decisionshould provide persuasive authority to the Fifth Circuit in itsreview of the San Antonio case.

In late 2012, the Tax Appeal Court of the State of Hawaii grantedsummary judgment in favor of Travelocity and other OTAs on theissue of whether Hawaii's hotel occupancy tax applies to themerchant revenue model. However, in January 2013, the same courtgranted summary judgment in favor of the State of Hawaii andagainst Travelocity and other OTAs on the issue of whether thestate's general excise tax, which is assessed on all businessactivity in the state, applies to the merchant revenue model forthe period from 2002 to 2011.

The company expensed $1 million and $14 million in cost of revenuefor the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively,which represents the amount the company would owe to the State ofHawaii, prior to appealing the Tax Appeal Court's ruling, in backexcise taxes, penalties and interest based on the court'sinterpretation of the statute. In 2014, the company made anegligible amount of payments and maintained an accrued liabilityof $8 million as of March 31, 2014. Payment of such amount is notan admission that the company believes it is subject to the taxesin question.

Travelocity has appealed the Tax Appeal Court's determination thatthe company is subject to general excise tax, as it believes thedecision is incorrect and inconsistent with the same court's priorrulings. If any such taxes are in fact owed (which it disputes),it believes the correct amount would be under $10 million. Theultimate resolution of these contingencies may differ from theliabilities recorded. To the extent the company's appeal issuccessful in reducing or eliminating the assessed amounts, theState of Hawaii would be required to refund such amounts, plusinterest. On May 20, 2013, the State of Hawaii issued anadditional general excise tax assessment for the calendar year2012. Travelocity has appealed this recent assessment to the TaxAppeal Court, and this assessment has been stayed pending a finalappellate decision on the original assessment.

On December 9, 2013, the State of Hawaii also issued assessmentsof general excise tax for merchant rental car bookings facilitatedby Travelocity and other OTAs for the period 2001 to 2012 forwhich the company recorded a $2 million reserve in the fourthquarter of 2013. Travelocity intends to appeal the assessment tothe Tax Appeal Court and does not believe the excise tax isapplicable.

As of March 31, 2014, the company has a remaining reserve of $19million, included in other accrued liabilities in the consolidatedbalance sheet, for the potential resolution of issues identifiedrelated to litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excisetaxes, which includes the $10 million liability for the remainingpayments to the State of Hawaii. As of December 31, 2013, thereserve for litigation involving hotel sales, occupancy or excisetaxes was $18 million. The company's estimated liability is basedon the company's current best estimate but the ultimate resolutionof these issues may be greater or less than the amount recordedand, if greater, could adversely affect the company's results ofoperations.

In addition to the actions by the tax authorities, four consumerclass action lawsuits have been filed against the company andother OTAs in which the plaintiffs allege that the company mademisrepresentations concerning the description of the fees receivedin relation to facilitating hotel reservations. Generally, theconsumer claims relate to whether Travelocity and the other OTAsprovided adequate notice to consumers regarding the nature of thecompany's fees and the amount of taxes charged or collected. Oneof these lawsuits was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court andsuch dismissal was subsequently affirmed; one was voluntarilydismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in Texas state court,where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs' motion tocertify a class action; and the last is pending in federal court,but has been stayed pending the outcome of the Texas state courtaction. The company believes the notice the company provided wasappropriate.

In addition to the lawsuits, a number of state and localgovernments have initiated inquiries, audits and otheradministrative proceedings that could result in an assessment ofsales or occupancy taxes on fees. If the company does not toprevail at the administrative level, those cases could lead toformal litigation proceedings.

Pursuant to the company's Expedia SMA, the company continues to beliable for fees, charges, costs and settlements relating tolitigation arising from hotels booked on the Travelocity platformoperated by Travelocity prior to the full implementation of theExpedia SMA. However, fees, charges, costs and settlementsrelating to litigation from hotels booked subsequent to theExpedia SMA will be shared with Expedia according to the terms ofthe Expedia SMA. Under the Expedia SMA, the company is alsorequired to guarantee Travelocity's indemnification obligations toExpedia for any liabilities arising out of historical claims withrespect to this type of litigation.

SABRE CORP: Bid to Amend Online Hotel Bookers' Suit Opposed-----------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in a suit by a class of bookers of online hotelreservations against Sabre Holdings, among others, have moved forleave to file an amended complaint after the dismissal of theircomplaints and the defendants have opposed this motion, accordingto the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,2014.

On August 20, 2012, two individuals alleging to represent aputative class of bookers of online hotel reservations filed acomplaint against Sabre Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and severalother online travel companies and hotel chains in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California, allegingfederal and state antitrust and related claims. The complaintalleges generally that the defendants conspired to enter intoillegal agreements relating to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30copycat suits were filed in various courts in the United States.In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigationcentralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the NorthernDistrict of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. Theproposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. OnJune 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity's motion to compelarbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on orafter February 4, 2010. While all claims from February 4, 2010through May 1, 2013 are now excluded from the lawsuit and must bearbitrated if pursued at all, the lawsuit still covers claims fromJanuary 1, 2003 through February 3, 2010. Together with the otherdefendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a motion to dismiss. OnFebruary 18, 2014, the court granted the motion and dismissed theplaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs have movedfor leave to file an amended complaint and the defendants haveopposed this motion. The company is awaiting the court's ruling.

SHENGDATECH INC: Opposes Third Amended Securities Complaint-----------------------------------------------------------A third amended complaint, which the defendant is opposing, wasfiled in In re ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation, accordingto Shengdatech Liquidating Trust's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2014.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through leadcounsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their thirdamended putative class action complaint (the "Third AmendedComplaint") in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York. on behalf of all purchasers of the commonstock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010,against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's formerofficers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the"Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor,KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of allegedmisrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other publicstatements made during the class period and asserts a claimagainst the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon.While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amountto be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recoveryagainst the Company under the Plan is limited to availableinsurance coverage and proceeds.

The Company was served with the Third Amended Complaint on October28, 2013. On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMGHK moved to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third AmendedComplaint on the grounds, among others, that it failed to statecognizable claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the ThirdAmended Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014, butthe Court has not yet ruled on the motions.

On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to theallegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. Inits Answer, the Company denied all material allegations ofwrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses.

TECHE HOLDING: Dismissed Together with IBERIABANK in "Solak" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia of theState of Louisiana dismissed all claims by John Solak againstTeche Holding Company and IBERIABANK Corporation, according toTeche's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In February 3, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuitcaptioned John Solak v. Teche Holding Company, IBERIABANKCorporation, et al., Case No. 123884, was filed in the 16thJudicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia of the State ofLouisiana against IBERIABANK Corporation, Teche and members ofTeche's board of directors. That suit subsequently was amended toassert, among other things, that the Teche directors breachedtheir fiduciary duties and/or violated Louisiana state law andthat IBERIABANK Corporation and Teche conspired with the directorsin those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

All defendants filed exceptions to the suit seeking dismissal.Teche and IBERIABANK Corporation filed exceptions of no cause ofaction and no right of action. The directors filed an exception ofno right of action. On April 15, 2014, the district court ruled infavor of defendants, finding that plaintiff had no individualright of action and dismissing all claims against Teche andIBERIABANK Corporation. The court granted plaintiff seven dayswithin which he could amend the suit to state a derivative claimand on April 22, 2014 the plaintiff filed an amended complaintagainst the individual directors of Teche and naming Teche as anominal defendant. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger.Teche and the individual directors intend to vigorously defendagainst the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' scheme to withholdpayment from the Plaintiffs for non-overtime and overtime hours isunlawful and constitutes wage theft, and the regular deductionsmade from what the Plaintiffs were owed amounts to a willful andknowing violation of the Maryland and Federal wage and overtimelaws.

TREMOR VIDEO: Plaintiffs in Suit Over IPO File Amended Complaint----------------------------------------------------------------Lead plaintiffs in a suit alleging misrepresentations by TremorVideo, Inc. in connection with its IPO filed an amended complaint,according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2014.

In November 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkagainst the company, the company's directors, and certain of thecompany's executive officers. The lawsuit alleges certainmisrepresentations by the company in connection with the company'sIPO concerning the company's business and prospects. The lawsuitseeks unspecified damages. On February 7, 2014, the Court enteredan order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On April22, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

UNITED BANCORP: Inks MoU to Settle Old National Merger Suit-----------------------------------------------------------A memorandum of understanding was entered to settle the suit PaulParshall v. United Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-39-CZ,according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 8-K filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In connection with the pending merger of United Bancorp, Inc.("United") with and into Old National Bancorp ("Old National"), onJanuary 17, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed inthe Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan, BusinessDivision, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder ofUnited. The action is styled Paul Parshall v. United Bancorp,Inc., et al., Case No. 14-39-CZ. The complaint alleges that thedirectors of United breached their fiduciary duties to United'sshareholders in connection with the merger by approving atransaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process thatundervalues United and includes preclusive deal protectionprovisions; and that United and Old National allegedly aided andabetted the United directors in breaching their duties to United'sshareholders. The defendants, which include all of the directorsof United, United, United's subsidiary bank, United Bank & Trust,Old National and Old National's subsidiary bank, Old NationalBank, deny the allegations in the complaint.

On May 13, 2014, the plaintiff and defendants entered into amemorandum of understanding (the "MOU") setting forth theiragreement in principle to settle the litigation. The MOU, amongother things, provides that: (a) the defendants will amend theproxy statement and prospectus included in Old National's Form S-4Registration Statement (Registration No. 333-193868) to includeagreed upon supplemental disclosures; (b) the stipulation ofsettlement will include an injunction against proceedings inconnection with the complaint and any additional complaintsconcerning claims that will be covered by the stipulation ofsettlement; (c) the stipulation of settlement will include arelease on behalf of the plaintiff, along with other members ofthe class of United shareholders certified for purposes of thestipulation of settlement, in favor of the defendants and theirrelated parties from any claims that arise from or are related tothe merger; (d) the plaintiff will have a 30-day period to conductconfirmatory discovery to confirm the fairness, reasonableness andadequacy of the stipulation of settlement; and (e) the defendantshave agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses asawarded by the court, subject to court approval of the stipulationof settlement and the consummation of the merger.

UNITED STATES: "Barry" Suit Wins Conditional Class Cert.--------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in TAMARA BARRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, NO. 13-457C are current and formerGS-1801 Immigration Officers (IOs) and GS-0132 IntelligenceResearch Specialists (IRSs) with the United States Department ofHomeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and ImmigrationServices (USCIS) Office of Fraud Detection and National Security.Until February 12, 2012, USCIS designated the plaintiffs'positions as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair LaborStandards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, as amended bythe Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 251-262. In thesuit, the Plaintiffs seek backpay and liquidated damages underSection 216(b) for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per weekduring the time that they were designated as FLSA exempt, prior toFebruary 12, 2012. The Plaintiffs also allege that the USCISwillfully violated the FLSA in designating them as exempt, thusextending the statute of limitations under Section 255(a)3 fromtwo years to three years.

Currently pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion forconditional certification of a collective action under Section216(b) of the FLSA and for authorization to mail notice topotential class members. The government opposes the motion forconditional certification, primarily on the ground that, becausethe government no longer disputes plaintiffs' non-exempt status,no common issues of law or fact unite the proposed class, and onlyindividualized inquiries remain for adjudication. The governmentalso finds fault with plaintiffs' proposed class definition andclass notice.

District Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the the United States Court ofFederal Claims grants the plaintiffs' motion for conditional classcertification, adopts a modified class definition that addressesthe government's concerns, and approves the notice fordistribution to potential class members.

The Court adopts the following as the definition of theconditional class:

All past or present employees of Defendant from three years priorto the date of the current notice until the present (the "ClaimsPeriod") who: (1) at any time during the Claims Period workedwithin the United States; (2) encumbered at any time during theClaims Period a GS-1801 Immigration Officer ("IO") or GS-0132Intelligence Research Specialist ("IRS") position within the U.S.Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and ImmigrationServices office of Fraud Detection and National Security; and (3)had their FLSA exemption status converted from exempt to non-exempt.

A copy of Judge Kaplan's opinion and order dated May 28, 2014, isavailable at http://is.gd/k2hgLvfrom Leagle.com.

UNITED STATES: HHS Sued Over Medicare Denial Appeals Process------------------------------------------------------------Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that a nonprofitadvocacy group on June 4 filed a proposed class action against theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of Medicarebeneficiaries who allege the department's appeals boards failed tomeaningfully review decisions denying them benefits.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy claims in a lawsuit filed inConnecticut federal court that thousands of state beneficiariesare unable to receive a meaningful review of their case, receivingdenials of coverage that are essentially "rubber-stamped" at thedepartment's two appeals levels, known as redetermination andreconsideration.

The complaint was not publicly available on June 6. The groupclaims that the denial rate at the redetermination has increasedas the department has implemented a new administrative reviewprocess for traditional Medicare recipients. It says the newsystem was intended to make the review process more efficient butbeneficiaries aren't receiving a meaningful review of theirclaims.

"Older people and people with disabilities are going withoutnecessary care because they're being wrongly denied coverage andeither drop out of the yearslong appeals process, waiting for ahearing, or impoverish themselves to pay for care," saidGill Deford, the center's litigation director. "The sheer numberof beneficiaries who are forced to deal with this time-consuming,meaningless appeals structure compelled us to take action to seekmeaningful reviews earlier in the appeals process."

Judith Stein, the executive director of the Center for MedicareAdvocacy, said that many members of the proposed class don't havethe time or money to take their claims to an administrative lawjudge, the final step in the appeals process after theredetermination and reconsideration level.

"'Rubber-stamping' appeals deprives a huge number of people alegitimate review process and harms those who depend on Medicarecoverage for critical health care and to maintain their quality oflife," she said in a statement.

Outgoing HHS director Kathleen Sebelius was named in the complaintin her official capacity. Ms. Sebelius will soon be replaced bySylvia Mathews Burwell, who has led the Office of Management andBudget -- the arm of the White House which oversees the federalbudget, including the president's annual budget request, and thequality of agency programs, policies and procedures -- since April2013.

Ms. Burwell was tapped by President Barack Obama to lead HHS inApril, after Ms. Sebelius' resignation, following the rockyrollout of the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges, thecenterpiece of the reform law.

The U.S. Senate on June 5 confirmed Ms. Burwell in a bipartisan78-17 vote, with a host of Republicans joining Senate Democrats invoting to confirm her to the HHS role.

The case is Hull et al v. Sebelius, case number 3:14-cv-00801, inthe U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

UNITED STATES: Farmers Can't Intervene in Class Suits-----------------------------------------------------A group that represents black farmers left out of twodiscrimination settlements with the U.S. Government cannotintervene in similar class actions brought by female farmers andHispanic farmers, reports Courthouse News Service, citing afederal court ruling.

The case is Rosemary Love, et al. v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary,United States Department of Agriculture, Case No. 00-2502 (RBW),in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

UNITEK GLOBAL: Seeks Final Approval of $1.6MM Stock Suit Accord---------------------------------------------------------------UniTek Global Services, Inc. is seeking final approval of a $1.6million settlement reached in In Re UniTek Global Services, Inc.Securities Litigation, Civil Action NO. 13-2119, according to thecompany's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

A consolidated class action lawsuit was filed against the Companyand certain of its current and former officers in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.The case, entitled In Re UniTek Global Services, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, Civil Action NO. 13-2119, alleges that the Companymade misstatements and omissions regarding its business, itsfinancial condition and its internal controls and systems inviolation of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In October 2013,the plaintiffs and the Company reached a preliminary agreement tosettle all claims for an amount of $1.6 million, includingattorneys' fees and expenses. In February 2014, the Court enteredan Order granting preliminary approval of the settlementagreement, and the hearing to approve the final settlement is setfor June 2014. The Company believes that the settlement amountwill be covered by insurance and has accrued the $0.3 milliondeductible.

Mercy Connor, individually, and on behalf of other members of thegeneral public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by EdwinAiwazian, The Aiwazian Law Firm, Arby Aiwazian, The Aiwazian LawFirm & Jill Jessica Parker, Aiwazian Law Firm.

Judge White found that Urban Outfitters has not met its burden todemonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 by apreponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court granted thePlaintiff's motion to remand

A copy of the District Court's May 28, 2014 Order is available athttp://is.gd/cBVVxgfrom Leagle.com.

US BANK: Trial Court Judgment in "Duran" Suit Must be Reversed--------------------------------------------------------------SAMUEL DURAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. U.S. BANKNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant, NO. S200923, isa wage and hour class action that proceeded through trial toverdict. Loan officers for U.S. Bank National Association (USB)sued for unpaid overtime, claiming they had been misclassified asexempt employees under the outside salesperson exemption. Thisexemption applies to employees who spend more than 50 percent ofthe workday engaged in sales activities outside the office.

After certifying a class of 260 plaintiffs, the trial courtdevised a plan to determine the extent of USB's liability to allclass members by extrapolating from a random sample. In the firstphase of trial, the court heard testimony about the work habits of21 plaintiffs. USB was not permitted to introduce evidence aboutthe work habits of any plaintiff outside this sample.Nevertheless, based on testimony from the small sample group, thetrial court found that the entire class had been misclassified.

After the second phase of trial, which focused on testimony fromstatisticians, the court extrapolated the average amount ofovertime reported by the sample group to the class as a whole,resulting in a verdict of approximately $15 million and an averagerecovery of over $57,000 per person.

The Supreme Court of California in an opinion dated May 29, 2014,a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/TcjgU1 from Leagle.com, held that "The judgment must be reversed because thetrial court's flawed implementation of sampling prevented USB fromshowing that some class members were exempt and entitled to norecovery. A trial plan that relies on statistical sampling mustbe developed with expert input and must afford the defendant anopportunity to impeach the model or otherwise show its liabilityis reduced. Statistical sampling may provide an appropriate meansof proving liability and damages in some wage and hour classactions. However, the trial court's particular approach tosampling here was profoundly flawed."

"On remand, the trial court must start anew by assessing whetherthere is a trial plan that can properly address both common andindividual issues if the case were to proceed as a class action,"added the Calif. Superme Court.

VOLTARI CORP: Dismissal of Securities Suit v. Motricity Appealed----------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit againstMotricity, Inc. filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of thecase to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,according to Voltari Corporation's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2014.

Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint inthe U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattleon behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquiredcommon stock of Motricity, Inc. ("Motricity") between June 18,2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's IPO. Motricity, whichwas the company's predecessor registrant, is now the company'swholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to VoltariOperating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certainof the company's current and former directors and officers,including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner,James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn,Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and theunderwriters in Motricity's IPO, including J.P. Morgan Securities,Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBCCapital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated,Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. Thecomplaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") andSection 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the "Exchange Act") by all defendants and under Section 10(b) ofthe Exchange Act by Motricity and those of the company's formerand current officers who are named as defendants. The complaintsought, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff'scosts and rescission. A second putative securities class actioncomplaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in the samecourt, also related to alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theExchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class actions wereconsolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to thePrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011,plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which added a claimunder Section 12 of the Securities Act to its allegations ofviolations of the securities laws and extended the putative classperiod from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011. The plaintiffsfiled an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a second amendedcomplaint on July 11, 2012. On August 1, 2012, the company filed amotion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was grantedon January 17, 2013. A third amended complaint was filed on April17, 2013. On May 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismissthe third amended complaint, which was granted by the Court onOctober 1, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed anotice of appeal of the dismissal to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit.

VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Receives $5.6MM From Antitrust Suit Accord--------------------------------------------------------------VOXX International Corporation received a sum of $5,643,000 in thesettlement of a suit relating to alleged price fixing of certainthin film transistor liquid crystal display flat panels, accordingto the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Feb. 28,2014.

The Company has been a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit againstseveral defendants relating to the alleged price fixing of certainthin film transistor liquid crystal display flat panels andcertain products containing these panels purchased between theyears 1999 and 2006, and the violation of U.S. antitrust laws.This class action suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs andin July 2013, the judge in the case ordered the distribution ofthe settlement funds that had been ordered to be put aside by thedefendants. Voxx received a sum of $5,643,000 which has beenrecorded in "Other Income (Expense)" in the Consolidated Statementof Operations and Comprehensive Income.

The Plaintiffs, who worked both as Servers and Food Runners forthe Defendants, allege that the Defendants engaged in a practiceof wage theft, whereby, the Defendants improperly took a portionof the tips received by the Plaintiffs and used this money for theDefendants' own purposes, including paying the wages of theirhourly employees, who did not receive tips.

Wasabi II, LLC and WME Capital LLC are South Carolina for-profitcorporations. The Individual Defendants are owners and operatorsof the Wasabi Restaurants. The Defendants own and operate WasabiRestaurants located in Daniel Island, Summerville and Charleston,South Carolina.

* Michael Lewis Firm Files Class Action v. 13 Stock Exchanges-------------------------------------------------------------Jill Treanor, writing for The Guardian, reports that the Americanlawyer who orchestrated a successful class action suit against thetobacco industry 20 years ago has turned his sights on the stockexchanges caught up in the controversy over high-frequencytrading.

HFT is the process by which professional traders are able to putorders in to the stock market more quickly than the majority ofinvestors. Putting in these earlier bets on the market, it isalleged, allows professionals to make quick profits at the expenseof savers and investors in pension funds.

The practice is being tested in a class action suit filed in a NewYork court last month by a number of US legal firms includingMichael Lewis, the lawyer who led a class action suit brought bythe state of Mississippi in 1994.

The team of lawyers he assembled at that time led to $368.5billion (GBP220 billion) being paid out by 13 tobacco companies tocover the cost of treating illnesses related to smoking in almost40 US states.

In an interview in Weekend magazine, Mr. Lewis -- who is notrelated to the author of the same name whose book Flash Boysexposed high-frequency trading to the public -- describes hiscourt action as "a small skirmish against the larger backdrop ofthe vast accumulation of wealth and political power".

The case in the Southern District of New York is filedagainst 13 stock exchanges and subsidiaries on behalf of HaroldLanier "individually, and on behalf of all others similarlysituated". "This is a case about broken promises," the 40-pagedocument begins. It is signed by eight legal firms.

In the interview, Mr. Lewis says that the information beingprovided by exchanges "was not timely or accurate, and wasn'tfairly distributed", and alleges that they were in breach ofcontract.

"The illusory market -- the market that the investor sees when helooks at his monitor -- is anywhere from 1,500 to 900 millisecondsold. That doesn't sound like much, because the blink of an eye is300 milliseconds. But that's a long, long time in the world ofHFT."

The case was filed on May 22, and is one of what is expected to bea large number of legal cases related to HFT. The 13 exchangesinvolved are yet to file a formal response in the court. InApril, Providence, the capital of the US state of Rhode Island,filed a case targeting a number of exchanges charged with fraud.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.